3 ms·

I'm going to comment here with a plug for the March For Science, on April 22. Why? Because the opioid epidemic started with a simple matter of scientists not

I'm going to comment here with a plug for the March For Science, on April 22. Why? Because the opioid epidemic started with a simple matter of scientists not being allowed to science. Purdue Pharmaceuticals marketed oxycontin as a drug that lasts for 12 hours. The evidence indicated it only lasted for 8. If Purdue's scientists were allowed to act on the evidence, i.e. to be actual scientists, the whole world would have known this years ago. People prescribed oxycontin would have been told to plan for 8 hours of relief, not 12. Instead, hundreds of thousands of patients were subjected to 4 hours of pain a day, and they sought relief with other drugs, including illegal ones. And the epidemic began. Science is important, yo.

devopsproject 10y ago
You forgot the best part: It made Purdue rich. Instead of changing the frequency of doses, they told doctors to up the strength which made the company more money. The owners of Purdue are billionaires now: http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
I totally agree with the spirit of your argument, but I think you're somewhat overstating the significance of the marketing/data mismatch here. You can't simply point to that and say "thus the epidemic began". There's a whole nexus of contributing factors at play: overprescription, socio-economic malaise, the ready availability of black market opioids, etc.
55555 10y ago
> Instead, hundreds of thousands of patients were subjected to 4 hours of pain a day, and they sought relief with other drugs, including illegal ones. And the epidemic began. No, I believe the purpose of this scheme was to let the drug wear off before the next dose, in order to reinforce the withdrawal/pain->relief cycle. Oxycodone users typically didn't seek out illegal drugs (heroin) until several years after starting prescription usage.

devopsproject 10y ago

You forgot the best part: It made Purdue rich. Instead of changing the frequency of doses, they told doctors to up the strength which made the company more money. The owners of Purdue are billionaires now: http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

I totally agree with the spirit of your argument, but I think you're somewhat overstating the significance of the marketing/data mismatch here. You can't simply point to that and say "thus the epidemic began". There's a whole nexus of contributing factors at play: overprescription, socio-economic malaise, the ready availability of black market opioids, etc.

55555 10y ago

> Instead, hundreds of thousands of patients were subjected to 4 hours of pain a day, and they sought relief with other drugs, including illegal ones. And the epidemic began. No, I believe the purpose of this scheme was to let the drug wear off before the next dose, in order to reinforce the withdrawal/pain->relief cycle. Oxycodone users typically didn't seek out illegal drugs (heroin) until several years after starting prescription usage.